May 24, 2019, 03:52:08 AM

Author Topic: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development  (Read 158053 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« on: September 24, 2010, 01:39:57 AM »
Just downloaded the SM stuff from here:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8ZWIzNWYzMDEtMTY2Ny00Yjk5LTljYTMtNmM4Mjk5OTQ1Nzdk&hl=en&pli=1

First things first. Why the heck is the SO available? And if it is available, why is it so easily taken? And if it is easily taken, why is it only priced at 425 points only same as a regular BB? Why would anyone take a regular BB now? Unless there's a rule which says one must take a regular BB before a VBB, no one is going to be using regular BBs anymore. They'll automatically go for the SO before choosing any other BB.

Next, lances being allowed seem to be the direction where the HA are going. However, SC getting Str 2 lances for no additional cost? So who in their right mind would be taking the regular SCs now? I sure as heck wouldn't. BCs are problematic to use with WBs. The SM are now being retrofitted into hardier IN ships. An SC fleet can now more reliably take on the IN fleet and have good chances of winning. I think that's the wrong direction.

Has the HA really playtested this before throwing out this bone to us or are they just doing theorygothic?

Lastly to offer a counter suggestion, I would say the SM BBs and SCs just need another shield. I've always been an advocate of this. They are the best light cruisers in the Imperial arsenal point for point but they can also easily die like flies esp to a lance heavy fleet. Adding another shield increases their survivability without increasing their anti-ship weaponry which should be maintained. They should have the best defensive oriented fleet but not have the best in offensive weaponry. As it is, the are at par now with the IN weaponry with this list.

I'll still add some more after I finish the whole article.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2010, 03:04:30 AM »
Quote
SC getting Str 2 lances for no additional cost? So who in their right mind would be taking the regular SCs now?

you forgot to add to that the dominion fleet lets you take the strike cruisers for 120 points with the lance retrofit. Yeah you loose +1 to HR and a few other things, but you have access to the thunderhawk bomber to replace it.

let me quote my post from when this travesty first appeared:

Quote
I do not like or want the marine fleet rules posted in those drafts. You are reversing a core Marine mechanic of limited availability of lances by allowing strike cruisers to take S2 lances in the forward arc for the same cost as a normal Strike Cruiser. Second, you are allowing the Seditio Opprimere which again goes contrary to the core mechanic of marine fleets having limited access to lances.  Third, I see no reason to ever use a list outside of the Dominion list. You loose boarding torpedoes and HR benefits, but you gain resilient bombers, 120 point strike cruisers with 2 lances on the front arc (dauntless speed with 6+ armor, 2 turrets and bombers? yes, please), and cheap battle barges.

This means that the test fleet I've been thinking of using would suddenly have a squadron of 4 strike cruisers carrying 8 lances and, if I wanted, I could swap out the battlebarge for the Seditio Opprimere bumping that up to 12 lances. While marines might need a bit of a boost to be more competitive, this just strikes me as bad in a number of ways. I'm not even sure why this is being made either, are you planning a combined IN fleet PDF with 1:1 battlecruisers to cruisers, non scattering NC, and 45CM WB standard too?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 03:06:31 AM by Vaaish »
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2010, 04:07:26 AM »
Good show. :)

I agreed with Vaaish in that thread. Travesty is a good word. I even think it is too nice for Strike Cruisers with lances for 120pts.

My ideas regarding Space Marines:
- teleport attacks allowed when on special orders.
- Strike Cruiser with a 2nd shield (if that means testing shows the vessel should be 150-155pts so be it).
- assault variant for Strike Cruisers

Regardng bomberdment:
In FAQ2010 it is apparant these fire simultanous with weapon batteries so no intervening blastmarkers.
-

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2010, 04:21:38 AM »
I haven't re-read the proposed FAQ2010 but the WB/BC interaction with no BMs sounds like a thorny issue. Which rolls would be which which takes down the shields? Nope, keep the current mechanic.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2010, 04:48:39 AM »
Admiral, if they both fire at the same time, it doesn't matter which drops shields. Most people will end up rolling the WB first and then the BC anyway. If they are rolled together, I'm pretty positive that WB hits will be selected first as dropping the shields no different than rolling WB and lances together for the sake of speed. So long as it is obvious which dice represent which weapons system, there isn't any confusion.
-Vaaish

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2010, 04:54:07 AM »
There is an issue since BCs do crits on 4+ (and Orks Heavy Gunz do double damage). I would prefer my BCs doing the damaging than my WBs.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding things since I have not re-read the FAQ2010 from the first time I read it. Do you mean that regardless of which weapon is fired first that the second battery type fired from one ship (or squadron) will not be affected by the resulting BMs fired from the first battery type? If so, then I will withdraw my complaint.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 05:04:01 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2010, 05:15:39 AM »
What you said is correct. it only relates to the same ship or squadron.
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2010, 05:29:07 AM »
Long time lurker here.  I  would like to also voice an extreme dislike of anything more than the rare lance in a space marine fleet.
It is the weaknesses as well as the strengths of a fleet that give them their enjoyable character.
Make the marines the best at what they do, and just what they do. 

Also, what changed in the errata for 2010?  I cant find it.  In my heart, I feel a ship should not obscure its own batteries with its other guns,
as they should all fire about the same time.  Aka, a ship is not effected by blast markers it creates in that turn for purposes of column shift

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2010, 06:44:04 AM »
Spartacus, that is basically what the clarification in the draft FAQ says.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2010, 06:54:04 AM »
Last S.
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1612.0

FAQ2010 wip PDF

(I mean the title says it all....) ;)

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2010, 09:27:07 AM »
The only changes SM needs are:
+1 shields to strike cruisers
Allow escorts to make 1 teleport attacks
Increase teleport attacks for barge and strike cruisers to three

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2010, 09:31:44 AM »
Battle Barge should also get 1 more shield. It's a battleship. It's a rare enough ship at 0-3. Fluff-wise it should be a tough target to take down.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2010, 09:38:21 AM »
True enough.

So we all agree on:
* 2nd shield for Strike Cruisers.

Varied ideas about Teleport Attacks:
* allowed on special orders;
* 1 per escort - 3 per capital ship

On the list:
* fourth shield Barge
* fourth turret Barge

Variants:
* Should Marines have variant pattern cruisers?
* Keep Venerable Battle Barges? ( I like them).

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2010, 09:48:35 AM »
I like the VBBs. I do not like the SO.

I don't like the variant pattern SCs either. Let's assume we keep the SC as it is. In a Dominion fleet list, i can now take 140 point SCs with 2 shields and 2 lances. Squadron them in groups of threes and I have one helluva strike force which will have a hard time being taken down. So I can just take two squadrons of three SCs priced a 840 points in a 1k game. Get a MotF so that's 890. I can then take three Cobra RSV or two Nova or Firestorm RSV. Just for the SCs alone, that's a total of six 25 cm, two shield, 6+ armor light cruisers with two turrets which have a total firepower of 24 WBs per side arc and Str 12 lances in the front arc and which BTW also has 12 THs for anti-ordnance role. That's just broken.

Oh, and while we're adding the second shield on the SC lower the TH it can chuck out by 1. That's what's making things difficult for it. I mean how the heck can that dinky ship carry 2 squadrons worth while the BB only brings 3 squadrons. Also if we convert the normal SC TH allotment to regular IN craft, that's an equivalent of 4 squadrons of AC in a ship the size of a Dauntless. I mean DOH!
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 10:00:29 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2010, 09:59:27 AM »
on variants for cruisers I mean:
* The Assault variant
* Devestator variant

not this lance blasphemy. Or S.O. blasphemy.